> From: Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 13:25:21 -0600
>
> Much of the common patches that are around fail in one of the tests above,
> at least when using the author's stringent tests. There's nothing wrong
> with this; he keeps qmail secure, reliable, efficient, and "correct",
> and anyone who wants to applies patches as they see fit.
I, for one, am hoping that 2.0 will have LDAP support which meets his standards.
Of course, from what I've seen this means he'll have to write his own LDAP
library and probably his own server as well. Not that that would be a bad
thing, but securing everything that an MTA needs does seem to distract him
into rather extensive tangents.
Chris
--
Chris Garrigues http://www.DeepEddy.Com/~cwg/
virCIO http://www.virCIO.Com
4314 Avenue C
Austin, TX 78751-3709 +1 512 374 0500
My email address is an experiment in SPAM elimination. For an
explanation of what we're doing, see http://www.DeepEddy.Com/tms.html
Nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft,
but they could get fired for relying on Microsoft.
PGP signature
